Honest question: According to an article by journalist @MattBruenig, CBO estimates show that out of every 830 people without health *insurance*, on average 1 will die as a result. 1 in 830. There are about 28 million people without insurance *now*.
http://mattbruenig.com/2017/06/22/how-many-people-will-obamacare-and-ahca-kill/ …
1/
-
Pokaż ten wątek
-
That’s *with* Obamacare. That’s almost 3000 Americans who die from lack of health insurance every *month*. Easy bet that there are more dead children among *those* 3000 children than who die in mass shootings. Bet you anything. So... Where’s the god-damned outrage for that?! 2/
2 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 3 polubionePokaż ten wątek -
Is it *less* tragic when children die over *greed* than it is when they die by being shot by a sick person?! Is it?! If we’re going to fix anything, shouldn’t *that* take the national priority?! You’re god-damned right it should! Because, guess what? 3/
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionychPokaż ten wątek -
Universal healthcare would *also* help combat these mass shootings! Mental healthcare! Ronald Reagan defunded our nation’s mental-health infrastructure in 1984. We’d fund that! Fewer sick people = fewer mass shootings. Do you know *why* you weren’t outraged? 4/
2 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 2 polubionePokaż ten wątek -
Because you probably didn’t know that fact. Because the media didn’t tell you. Because it doesn’t help the two corporate parties keep you guys divided fighting over which one of them is the problem. They’re *both* the problem. 5/
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionychPokaż ten wątek -
Republicans and Democrats both try to earn points on the backs of dead kids. (As long as they’re shot, and not just left to die for lack of money.) They only do it when the kids were shot. That’s it. I’m tired of it. I’m proposing solutions. And step one is to vote them out. 6/
3 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 2 polubionePokaż ten wątek -
So, shouldn’t we fix healthcare first? Make sure *everyone* has coverage *forever*? Save over 35,000 American lives per year? Can we prioritize this by how many people we can help at once? Or is hysteria going to keep winning the day? 7/7
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionychPokaż ten wątek -
W odpowiedzi do @RealSteveCox
At this point you’d have to incentivize low cost alternatives to traditional health care. Traditional insurance and healthcare make up too large of a percentage of the economy...every person with a retirement or college fund would be ruined if you simply eliminated it.
2 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
-
W odpowiedzi do @RealSteveCox
Thanks. Glad I’ve made the choice to save to save for the future when you think erasing 20% of our economy is ‘fine’.
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych
Erasing it? No. Taking it from 18% to 12% isn’t erasing it. Your other stocks will do better. It frees up money in the economy to be spent in actual free markets. More sales for many other sectors.
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.